There is a wide-spread impression that the Livery Guilds exist principally for the purpose of feasting, and there are unscrupulous persons who do not hesitate to affirm that the Courts of the Companies act as fraudulent trustees, and are consenting parties to the malversation of trust and charity property, eating up money which it is audaciously pretended belongs to the “people of London.”

These statements have been assiduously put forth by a certain class of politicians whose acquaintance with the true details of the case must be absolutely nil, and who it is but reasonable to suppose, are willing to assume that the gentlemen who manage the affairs of the Companies are in the habit of acting as their traducers would do, had they but the opportunity.

To any one conversant with the history and management of the Livery Guilds, these assertions are known to be false. Here and there, as in every concern in life, improprieties and errors in judgment may have occurred, but it is confidently asserted, and capable of proof, that no charitable or trust funds suffer from feasting; indeed, on the contrary, the practice has obtained for centuries, with but few exceptions, for the members of the guilds to themselves supply the funds which are spent upon their entertainment, and for the surplus accumulations of these funds to be applied to the augmentation of charities and trusts. It has certainly been so in the Barber-Surgeons’ Company, and for a long period the calls upon the Livery for feasting purposes (when the custom was to nominate Stewards in rotation) were a severe strain upon the members, and occasioned great irritation and ill-feeling.

The earliest practice in the Companies would appear to be that the Livery and their wives attending the feasts, paid a stipulated sum per head, and we know this by our records to have been so in our Company long before the time of Richard II. This custom was altered in later times, and we find that certain appointed entertainments were given on fixed days, to which all members were invited, and which were paid for by fines laid down upon admission to the freedom, and further fines on going on to the Livery and Court. In addition to this, each Liveryman had, in his turn, to serve “the office of Steward,” that is, to join with four or five others in providing the costs of certain dinners.282

The fees on admission into the Companies are greatly in excess of the ancient ones, and it is mainly from this source of revenue that the expenses of the feasts are now defrayed. It is so in the Barbers’ Company, but, if at any time these funds have temporarily been found insufficient for the purpose, they have been supplemented from a property, which is in no sense a Charity Estate, or subject to any trust whatsoever.

There have been and are, good men of business on the Courts, and by prudent investments of surplus funds derived from fees, fines, etc., a property has been created, which is exclusively their very own to deal with as they please. We have, amongst many others, the opinion of Lord Chancellor Selborne very decisively to this effect, and also one, which by the traducers of the Companies ought to be respected, for it is that of Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., who was consulted by the Livery Companies’ Commission—a Commission notoriously hostile to the guilds. Sir H. Davey stated that they would “not be justified in recommending that the corporate property of the Companies should be taken from them by the State.” He further reported that, such an act “would be an act of confiscation, and would not unreasonably shake the confidence of the owners of property in the security of the rights of property. It must be remembered that the Estates of these Companies have been recognised, and held by the Courts of Law, to be as much their property with a full right of disposition, as the property of individuals.” Truly, the Commissioners must have said to their legal adviser as Balak of old said to Baalam, “I took thee to curse mine enemies, and behold thou hast blessed them altogether!”

It is a pleasing characteristic of all true Englishmen that they love to meet together around a festive board; while their hospitality in inviting their friends, or the eminent and great in all sections of society to partake with them has happily not gone out of fashion, and, spite of the sour critics of the guilds, we fervently trust that it never may.

1388. In the return to a writ, 12th Richard II, the Masters of the Barbers certified, amongst other matters, that it was their practice “once a year to assemble to feast,” and that they had an ordinance by which none of the brotherhood were to pay more than 14d. each towards the feast.

10th May, 1435. Among the Ordinances of the Surgeons was one that each member was to “paie ?eerli to the dyner of the craft that is to seie oonys a?eer on the dai of Seint luke ech man lich mich whethir he be p?sent or absent,” i.e., once a year on St. Luke’s day each man was to pay like much whether present or absent.

28th September, 1503. It was ordained that every member attending the dinner the day on which the Wardens were presented to the Lord Mayor was to pay 20d., and if he brought his wife with him, then 2s.

The Barber-Surgeons from the earliest times appear to have entertained the ladies at certain feasts, and their unique toast “The Good Wives, Merry Maids and Buxom Widows of the Worshipful Company of Barbers” is traditionally said to have had its origin in Elizabeth’s time.

14th May, 1530. The following is amongst the ordinances signed by Sir Thomas More at this date—

8th July, 1552. The earliest entry in the Court Minutes on this subject is a doleful one, for it was ordered “That there shalbe no dynner kept this yere.”

19th September, 1552. William Bette was appointed “Cooke for the Hall,” and Steven Reede the “Butler.” John Edwards (a Freeman) was to supply the flowers on the feast days.

28th July, 1555. It was ordered that the Masters should have a yearly allowance of £7 for the Election dinner, and that none should be at the dinner but Liverymen.

22nd July, 1556. This allowance was increased to £13 6s. 8d.

20th February, 1567. Henry Smith, yeoman to Lord Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, was admitted to the freedom, and because he had been frankly and freely admitted to the freedom of the City at the suit of the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquess of Northampton and the Earl of Leicester, he paid nothing but 3s. 4d., and 4d. for entering his name—

25th August, 1600. There having been abuses at the feasts, an order was made for their reformation which stated—

An order was also made that no Assistant should have more than one servant or apprentice to attend upon him and his wife at any feast.

Margery, however, does not seem to have “honestlie and sufficientlie behaved her selfe,” for as appears by an entry—

The Plague was raging severely in London in 1603, and the following precept was addressed to the Company, who however seem to have disregarded it, as the Election and Audit dinners were held this year. It is only fair, however, to state that the Court disbursed considerable sums of money amongst the poor stricken people.

The following circumstance is significant, as exactly one hundred years later the separation which Mr. Foster desired, and for which he got into trouble, became an accomplished fact.

6th November, 1645. Mr. Ralph Foster was complained of for refusing to make his dinner to the Court on his election as an Assistant, and he thereupon uttered certain speeches “tending to the separation of the Barbers from the Surgeons,” for which he was reprimanded, whereupon he promised to make his dinner and to say no more about disunion.

23rd October, 1649. Upon reading the precept requiring the Livery to attend the Lord Mayor Elect to Westminster in their Barge, it was ordered that the Livery should be warned to perform that service in accordance with old custom, and “that there be a ffeast at the Hall on that day for the said Livery, But in respect of the hardnes and troubles of the times this Court doth consent that there be noe second course and noe Woeman at the same ffeast.”